Critical Reflection 1

Aliens & UFO's: Mexican Immigrants as UnI.D.entified Foreign Objects

            Although she maintains that multiculturalism has become an integral part of Canada’s self identity, Eva Mackey’s article titled “Managing the House of Difference: Official Multiculturalism” addresses the issue of one way accommodation in Canada where the cultural and linguistic assimilation of multicultural individuals and their families is made at the expense of losing their identities. Accommodation is a process that must be shared by everyone, but all too often are ethnic minorities made to be the victims of institutionalized discrimination and prejudicial practises. Similar to Michel Foucault who tells us that our task is to examine how the truth is produced, the discourse of Canada as a multicultural nation based upon a bilingual framework must be put into question (Mackey, 2002). For it is this ideology and discourse which influences the ideas that are put into practise and used to regulate the conduct of others (Leroux, 2010 slides).

            Mackey’s article begins with a discussion of how the racial discourse associated with multiculturalism evolved after the post war period, and is intertwined with the development of Canada’s national identity. According to the author, this form of multicultural nation imagining is contradictory in nature. Although it was an attempt by elites to institutionalize various forms of difference, she claims it was also done in efforts of differentiating the nation from its neighbour in the United States (Mackey, 2002).

            In comparison to its neighbours south of the border, Canada gives the impression of a young nation still developing its identity. For example, emphasizing the importance of symbols as a strategic tool in Canada’s national development, Mackey notes that the flag and national anthem have only been in existence for forty three years (Mackey, 2002). From this perspective she portrays Canada as a nation whose identity is still emerging. Here, it becomes evident that a large part of Canada’s identity is shaped in contrast to the U.S., and that it will never be fully autonomous. Not only is Canada literally attached to the U.S. because of its geographic proximity, but one must remember that ideologies are perpetuated by the media, and as much as Canada likes to say it has a national identity, there is no purely, dominant form of Canadian media.

            For example, take into consideration the Canadian news coverage regarding the Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Under the provisions of this bill, the U.S. federal law requires individuals to register with the U.S. government and to have registration documents in their possession at all times. Meanwhile, this act also makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an individual to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents, therefore permitting state law enforcement to detain individuals based on “reasonable” suspicion that they are illegally present in the U.S. (Reagor, 2010). Not only is this an example of how we as Canadians know a great deal more about issues pertaining to the U.S., but it is also a clear instance of racial profiling. How can law enforcement personnel use race or ethnicity as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement, after all what does an illegal immigrant look like?

            Interestingly, the treatment of Arizona “aliens” is neither foreign nor dissimilar to Canada’s treatment of the Natives. Status Indians must hold a certified Indian status identity card issued by the federal government in order to receive entitlement to a wide range of programs and services offered by federal agencies, provincial governments and the private sector. If the card holder cannot be properly identified by a name, photograph, and an Indian band or registry number, they will be exempt from such benefits. Here, it is in strong support of Mackey’s opinion that I believe intolerance for multiculturalism still persists despite Canada’s efforts to define its identity as different from the U.S. through an “increase in state intervention, control and surveillance of culture and the state sponsored production of national identity” (Mackey, 2002, p. 54). With respect to “making Indians ethnic” by having the government define Native ethnicity according to Canadian standards, Mackey notes that the failure to define their own culture means that Natives do not fit into any group in Canadian society, neither the two founding races of Canada (the French and the English), nor the third area (immigrant or ethnic groups) (Mackey, 2002).

            Canada can try all it wants to separate itself from the U.S., but I believe that in both countries there is a strong opposition against accepting multiculturalism, and the lack of regard for Native rights is just one example. The sole reason Canada has a reputation for being generous and tolerant towards immigrants is due to the fact that institutionalized multiculturalism is a part of Canada’s national identity which breeds implicit intolerance of ethnic difference, which contrasts the U.S. where multicultural intolerance is explicit. Perhaps Canada is not as different from the U.S. as it would like to think. After all, the same ethnic majority makes the rules in both countries so why would it be any different?

Reference List

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Retrieved September 27, 2010, from http://www/ainc-

      inac.gc.ca/br/is/index-eng.asp

Mackey, Eva. (2002). Managing the House of Difference: Official Multiculturalism. In The

      House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (pp.50-70). 

      Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Reagor, C. (2010, June 14). Arizona Immigration Law. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved

     from http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/06/14/20100614

     arizona-immigration.html In-text: (Reagor, 2010).